Julian Assange loses extradition appeal at Supreme Court

[Finlandia]

Breadvan72 said:

Scuffers said:

Breadvan72 said:

Can someone who supports the "this is a sneaky US plan to grab him" theory please explain why the US did not seek to extradite Assange when he was at liberty and at large in the UK, and maybe also ponder which of the two, Sweden or the UK, is the closest ally of the US with a proven history of assisting the US in murky doings?

simple explanation is they do not have anything they can support a charge that's extraditable from the UK.

During the Manning case, they tried really hard to get Manning to give them enough on Assange to indict him, but seemingly failed.

I am assuming their treaty with Denmark is different to the UK? (or we are talking special rendition? - tin foil hat in place!)

Your simple explanation is no explanation at all. If the US had nothing to extradite on from the UK, its position will be no better vis a vis Sweden, and in fact will be worse, for reasons I shall explain below.

I am not sure why you think Denmark has anything to do with this. Sweden's extradition arrangements with the US are not as favourable to the US as is the UK's notoriously generous (to the US) extradition treaty with the US. Here is another point: Sweden is bound by international law NOT to extradite Assange to the US because of the way ion which intra EU extradition works. Sweden is a country with a record of complying with international law (the UK usually complies, but lately not so much). The UK formerly illegally assisted the US with extraordinary renditions. It has since stopped doing this (and paid very large sums to compensate victims of its illegal actions). Sweden has not, AFAIK, assisted the US in this way.

In 2001, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police. They were taken to Bromma airport in Stockholm, had their clothes cut from their bodies, suppositories inserted in their anuses and in diapers, overall, handcuffs and chains put on an executive jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men.
They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to reports by Swedish investigative programme "Kalla fakta".

In 2002 and several times later different CIA chartered jets were spotted at Arlanda airport as well as other airports around Sweden.

In 2006 the United Nations found Sweden had violated an international torture ban in its complicity in the CIA's transfer to Egypt. Sweden imposed strict rules on rendition flights, but Swedish Military Intelligence posing as airport personnel who boarded one of two subsequent extraordinary rendition flights in 2006 during a stopover at Stockholm’s Arlanda International Airport found the Swedish restrictions were being ignored.

Sweden refuses to release CIA rendition flight records, and all information regarding these operations has now been classified.

The rendition flights were stopped and an acute diplomatic crisis between Sweden and US broke out.


All according to Wikileaks, and confirmed by Kalla Fakta.




ETA, beaten to it by AJS

Edited by Finlandia on Friday 4th September 08:54

[Andy Zarse]

Finlandia said:

Breadvan72 said:

Scuffers said:

Breadvan72 said:

Can someone who supports the "this is a sneaky US plan to grab him" theory please explain why the US did not seek to extradite Assange when he was at liberty and at large in the UK, and maybe also ponder which of the two, Sweden or the UK, is the closest ally of the US with a proven history of assisting the US in murky doings?

simple explanation is they do not have anything they can support a charge that's extraditable from the UK.

During the Manning case, they tried really hard to get Manning to give them enough on Assange to indict him, but seemingly failed.

I am assuming their treaty with Denmark is different to the UK? (or we are talking special rendition? - tin foil hat in place!)

Your simple explanation is no explanation at all. If the US had nothing to extradite on from the UK, its position will be no better vis a vis Sweden, and in fact will be worse, for reasons I shall explain below.

I am not sure why you think Denmark has anything to do with this. Sweden's extradition arrangements with the US are not as favourable to the US as is the UK's notoriously generous (to the US) extradition treaty with the US. Here is another point: Sweden is bound by international law NOT to extradite Assange to the US because of the way ion which intra EU extradition works. Sweden is a country with a record of complying with international law (the UK usually complies, but lately not so much). The UK formerly illegally assisted the US with extraordinary renditions. It has since stopped doing this (and paid very large sums to compensate victims of its illegal actions). Sweden has not, AFAIK, assisted the US in this way.

In 2001, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police. They were taken to Bromma airport in Stockholm, had their clothes cut from their bodies, suppositories inserted in their anuses and in diapers, overall, handcuffs and chains put on an executive jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men.
They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to reports by Swedish investigative programme "Kalla fakta".

In 2002 and several times later different CIA chartered jets were spotted at Arlanda airport as well as other airports around Sweden.

In 2006 the United Nations found Sweden had violated an international torture ban in its complicity in the CIA's transfer to Egypt. Sweden imposed strict rules on rendition flights, but Swedish Military Intelligence posing as airport personnel who boarded one of two subsequent extraordinary rendition flights in 2006 during a stopover at Stockholm’s Arlanda International Airport found the Swedish restrictions were being ignored.

Sweden refuses to release CIA rendition flight records, and all information regarding these operations has now been classified.

The rendition flights were stopped and an acute diplomatic crisis between Sweden and US broke out.


All according to Wikileaks, and confirmed by Kalla Fakta.




ETA, beaten to it by AJS

Edited by Finlandia on Friday 4th September 08:54

So what you're saying is, in essence, there was a massive public outcry at illegal rendition, so the Swedes stopped the practice and now work within legal bounds, leading to a "diplomatic crisis" with the US.

Therefore, would it appear reasonable to infer the Swedes are now rigorously following the letter of international law? And if so, what is Assange worried about apart from being found guilty of what George Galloway described as a "lack of sexual etiquette" (yes honestly, he did!) but what others may describe as sexual assault or rape?

[Finlandia]

Andy Zarse said:

So what you're saying is, in essence, there was a massive public outcry at illegal rendition, so the Swedes stopped them, leading to a "diplomatic crisis" with the US.

Therefore, would it appear reasonable to infer the Swedes are now rigorously following the letter of international law? And if so, what is Assange worried about apart from being found guilty of what George Galloway described as a "lack of sexual etiquette" (yes honestly, he did!) but what others may describe as sexual assault or rape?

My reply was to "Sweden has not, AFAIK, assisted the US in this way", they have, and when it was leaked, they hastily classified all other information.

Lack of sexual etiquette

[cirian75]

looks to me that Assange's worries about being handed over the US by Sweden are very well founded.

[anonymous-user]

The UK's record on rendition and torture is, sadly, at least as bad as Sweden's, and I would say arguably worse, as the UK was involved in the shenanigans on a wider basis and for longer. The illegal actions of governments co-operating with the illegal actions of the US rightly attracted public condemnation (except from those who support torture and rendition etc, on the grounds of "he looks like a wrong 'un" - there are not a few of those elsewhere on PH). Is it realistic to suppose that either the UK or Sweden will now, in the glare of public scrutiny, simply railroad Assange to the US? If you wanted to contrive a basis for doing so, why concoct some allegations that might perhaps stand up as rape charges, but also might not. Why not do a much simpler frame up? As usual with conspiracy theories, this one falls apart because the supposed evil plan is simultaneously too complex and too dumb. A real conspiracy would be simpler and cleverer.

[Andy Zarse]

cirian75 said:

looks to me that Assange's worries about being handed over the US by Sweden are very well founded.

But apparently not before he'd raped anyone!

As you well know, Assange formally applied to become a Swedish resident before the lack of "etiquette" occurred. You'd have thought the head of WikiLeaks would have known the Swedish position with regard to US extradition wouldn't you and not want to live there?

[AJS-]

Andy Zarse said:

But apparently not before he'd raped anyone!

As you well know, Assange formally applied to become a Swedish resident before the lack of "etiquette" occurred. You'd have thought the head of WikiLeaks would have known the Swedish position with regard to US extradition wouldn't you and not want to live there?

I think that is a classic case of things going "better" than he had ever expected. Don't forget that in 2011 he was winning awards and being heralded as a champion of democracy. He may have been a thorn in the side of governments but more as an inquisitive journo than the fully fledged enemy of the state he became in mid 2012.

[Finlandia]

Breadvan72 said:

The UK's record on rendition and torture is, sadly, at least as bad as Sweden's, and I would say arguably worse, as the UK was involved in the shenanigans on a wider basis and for longer. The illegal actions of governments co-operating with the illegal actions of the US rightly attracted public condemnation (except from those who support torture and rendition etc, on the grounds of "he looks like a wrong 'un" - there are not a few of those elsewhere on PH). Is it realistic to suppose that either the UK or Sweden will now, in the glare of public scrutiny, simply railroad Assange to the US? If you wanted to contrive a basis for doing so, why concoct some allegations that might perhaps stand up as rape charges, but also might not. Why not do a much simpler frame up? As usual with conspiracy theories, this one falls apart because the supposed evil plan is simultaneously too complex and too dumb. A real conspiracy would be simpler and cleverer.

You would expect UK to help US with pretty much anything and everything, they are long term allies and part of NATO, while you really wouldn't expect anything of the sort from a neutral country that is a self proclaimed humanitarian superpower.

[Borghetto]

He may be heralded as a hero for freedom of information by some, but for me he has decided along with that "useful fool" Snowden; to reveal information without any thought to the damage he might do to individuals and the states that provide him with the luxury of the freedoms he seems to cherish. I don't know whether his leaks have caused people to lose their lives or freedom, but sitting as judge and jury over what information to leak, without being fully informed of what damage this could cause is criminal. That he used our legal system and the generous idiots to put up bail for him, then without any thought to their losses absconded makes him at best look dishonest. His offer of being interviewed in London for crimes committed in Sweden are laughable - I'm sure there are thousands of criminals who would love to choose the country in which they are questioned, but the process is that you are questioned/charged in the country of the crime, what makes Assange so special.

Edited by Borghetto on Friday 4th September 14:43

[jshell]

I watched a programme where Assange stated that he would refuse to redact the names of local informers that the allied forces had used in Afghanistan, thereby sentencing them to likely death.

The man is a prick. But, I still don't blame him for avoiding going to Sweden!

[Finlandia]

jshell said:

I watched a programme where Assange stated that he would refuse to redact the names of local informers that the allied forces had used in Afghanistan, thereby sentencing them to likely death.

The man is a prick. But, I still don't blame him for avoiding going to Sweden!

The Swedish forces and government did something similar with their local personnel, leaving them open for retribution after leaving. That sparked a huge discussion here, but the short is that they will not be given asylum in Sweden.

[AJS-]

It's quite possible to champion civil liberties and FOI while also being an egotistical maniac.

[Martin4x4]

AJS- said:

It's quite possible to champion civil liberties and FOI while also being an egotistical maniac.

In fact he has done so much damage to the FOI cause, I would not be surprised if it turned out he was running a false flag operation.

[Puggit]

BBC report police have stopped 'guarding' the embassy

[Jockman]

Great. Are the SAS about to storm it.........?

[Scuffers]

BBC said:

The estimated cost of the police presence is more than £12m.

utter bargain!

[Blackpuddin]

He must have been delighted to have had this free protection for all this time. Normally only important people qualify for this. I would love to know why the police thought the best way to arrest someone would be to barricade them in, thus ensuring that they never came out. Wouldn't it have made more sense to not post police outside the Embassy and then nick him when he stepped out, all unsuspecting like?

[Transmitter Man]

Scuffers said:

BBC said:

The estimated cost of the police presence is more than £12m.

utter bargain!

I wonder how that compares with BLiar pro rata?

Just mentioned that they will continue with overt/covert monitoring of the embassy.

I'd ask Google, that'll save the UK taxpayer some.

Phil

[Blackpuddin]

Has he popped out to the shops yet, does anyone know?

[CoolHands]

Puggit said:

BBC report police have stopped 'guarding' the embassy

if true, then what is the reason for guarding it for all these years and wasting nearly 13 million fkING QUID the s